Fifteen years ago, special-education legislation was initiated to
reform an educational system that excluded or overlooked many students.
Who would have thought it could lead to another mindset as rigid and
limiting as the one it sought to change?

Having evaluated special-education programs in many school systems,
I am convinced that the more responsive the teaching approach, the less
need there is for "special'' education.

While keeping the safeguards, we must re-examine and change funding
formulas that thwart efforts that work, contribute to destructive and
inappropriate competition, and widen the gap between regular and
special education.

Levaun Dennett, principal at Montlake, is on the right track.

Linda Howard
Educational Consultant
Westminster, Mass.

To the Editor:

Congratulations to Levaun Dennett. Her innovative, school-based
approach to change is laudable.

The success of similar programs elsewhere is documented.

When I encouraged staff members to modify this concept to meet the
needs of our school, we were able to realize many positive outcomes.
Morale improved; pupil-teacher ratios decreased; instructional options
became available; time on task increased; and better relations between
"special'' and classroom teachers developed.

Your April 6 article, "Hopes for a 'Team of Fellow Professionals',''
offers proof that the real problem facing the school-reform movement is
monopoly bargaining.

The Cincinnati contract, patterned after the familiar "closed shop''
mentality of industry, has nothing to do with either "professionalism''
or school reform.

It has everything to do with the protection and perpetuation of the
union.

The so-called "win-win'' bargaining that carved out the Cincinnati
agreement plays the union officials' game as adversarial negotiations
never did. For the first time in Cincinnati's history, some 500
teachers will be required to pay dues to the union in order to
teach.

Dedicated, competent educators who, for one reason or another, had
decided not to join the union will now be forced to hand over nearly
$150,000 annually to the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers--an
affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers and the
A.F.L.-C.I.O.--if they want to remain in their classrooms.

It is no coincidence that most of the school districts mentioned in
the balance of the article are "agency shop'' districts--where there is
no respect for teachers' freedom to not support a union.

Of the six states cited, only Pennsylvania protects its educators
from compulsory-dues contracts.

Forced dues is the first priority of union officials; once they
control who can teach in the district, negotiating for additional
policy control is only a matter of time.

Monopoly bargaining leaves the community powerless to effect any
change that does not pass union muster.

Lasting school reform will occur when those who care about the
schools are free to share equally the power and responsibility to
act.

The cries for "school-based management,'' "decentralization,''
"building autonomy,'' and "local control'' are born of a longing for a
return to the time when citizens were truly in charge of their
community's schools.

The arguments used by Tim Morrill in his March 30 letter criticizing
my Commentary ("'Pressures' for Creationism To Be Resisted,'' Feb. 10,
1988) reflect the lack of understanding of science and evolution that
often characterizes creationist attacks on science teachers and those
responsible for developing science curricula.

First, he asserts that evolution cannot "be tested, much less
proven,'' and raises the question of whether it "should be taught in
science classes at all.'' He uses a quote by Stephen Jay Gould--who
believes that evolution is not a gradual process--to suggest that the
noted scientist thinks evolution is not occurring.

To depict evolution as a religious dogma, Mr. Morrill then
associates it with a tax-exempt religious organization.

And he argues that "our students have a right to know the
truth.''

Since he quoted Mr. Gould, we should note the scientist's recent
statement that "evolution on an ancient earth is as well established as
our planet's shape and position.''

The "struggle to understand how evolution happens (the 'theory of
evolution') does not cast our documentation of its occurrence--the
'fact of evolution'--into doubt,'' Mr. Gould says.

And he goes on to indicate that it is the creationists who have
abridged the academic freedom of teachers because they have pushed
legislators to mandate the teaching of creation science.

This effort has been unsuccessful, Mr. Gould concludes, because
creationism is false, and "because good teachers understand why it is
false.''

As stated in the National Academy of Science's publication Science
and Creationism, the goal of science is "to seek naturalistic
explanations for phenomena'' and "to approach true explanations as
closely as possible,'' with the recognition that "investigators claim
no final or permanent explanatory truths.''

Science is not dogma and, as indicated by Mr. Morrill, should not be
taught in a dogmatic way. However, creationism is dogma, and can only
be taught in a dogmatic manner.

Finally, despite Mr. Morrill's misunderstanding, I did not contend
that teaching creationism was illegal.

Rather, I argued that governmental mandates forcing the teaching of
creationism were illegal and that there were no good reasons to include
creationism in the biology curriculum, since it does not explain the
natural world.

I loved the Commentary by Gene I. Maeroff ("The Empowerment of
Teachers,'' March 23, 1988), but I hated the accompanying artwork.

Was the art a parody?

Teachers at the elementary and secondary levels are usually female.
They typically are given nice awards--such as flowers--but not
noteworthy ones--such as higher pay, office space, paid conference
trips, etc.

And the illustration places teachers "on a pedestal''--a patronizing
position, out of the way of the action.

Could we see a depiction of teachers leading and being rewarded in a
more appropriate manner?

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.